Using Theories to Frame Research Studies

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284942275

Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for

Employee Extra-Role Behaviors

Article  in  Journal of Business and Psychology · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z

CITATIONS

24 READS

1,368

5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LMX and servant leadership View project

the Canada Research Chair in Management of Employee Commitment and Performance View project

Alexandra Panaccio

John Molson School of Business, Concordia University

28 PUBLICATIONS   605 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

David J. Henderson

City, University of London

6 PUBLICATIONS   1,150 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Robert C Liden

University of Illinois at Chicago

136 PUBLICATIONS   20,838 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Sandy Wayne

University of Illinois at Chicago

77 PUBLICATIONS   14,127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert C Liden on 22 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ORIGINAL PAPER

Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for Employee Extra-Role Behaviors

Alexandra Panaccio • David J. Henderson •

Robert C. Liden • Sandy J. Wayne •

Xiaoyun Cao

Published online: 27 November 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract

Purpose This research aims to contribute to servant lead-

ership theory by applying social exchange theory to examine

why and under what conditions servant leadership is related

to employee extra-role behaviors. Specifically, we examined

the psychological contract (PC) as a mediating mechanism

between servant leader behaviors and two forms of

employee extra-role behaviors: organizational citizenship

behaviors (OCBs) and innovative behaviors. Furthermore,

we examined employee extraversion, collectivism, and

proactive personality as boundary conditions.

Design/methodology/approach We used time-lagged data

collected from 101 supervisor–subordinate dyads.

Findings We found that PC fulfillment mediated the

relationships of servant leadership with innovative behav-

iors, and with individual initiative and loyal boosterism

forms of OCB. In addition, extraversion and collectivism

moderated the relationship between servant leadership and

PC fulfillment, such that it was stronger among individuals

low on these characteristics.

Implications This study suggests that PC fulfillment is a

key process through which servant leadership influences

follower engagement in extra-role behaviors, and sheds

light as to when leadership matters most in terms of

motivating employee outcomes through behaviors associ-

ated with greater PC fulfillment.

Originality/value This is an important contribution, as

servant leadership research has been largely void of clari-

fying the psychological mechanisms and boundary condi-

tions through which servant leader behaviors influence

follower well-being and associated outcomes.

Keywords Leadership � Servant leadership � Psychological contract � Organizational citizenship behaviors � Innovative behaviors � Employee dispositions

Partly in response to evidence that many leaders focus

primarily on their own self-interest (O’Reilly et al. 2014),

advocacy for an opposite form of leadership has arisen.

This alternative perspective views the role of leaders to be

based on service to followers, as opposed to service to self

whereby effort is geared toward maximizing benefits for

the leader or the organization in which the leader is

embedded. A growing group of leadership scholars argue

that effective leadership processes are founded upon leader

behaviors that are reflective of self-sacrificing motives, and

seek to explore this issue through the lens of servant

leadership theory (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart

2004; Graham 1991; Hu and Liden 2011; Hunter et al.

2013; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b; Neubert et al. 2008; Rus-

sell and Stone 2002; Schaubroeck et al. 2011; van Diere-

ndonck et al. 2014; Walumbwa et al. 2010).

Servant leadership philosophy (Greenleaf 1970, 1977)

contends that when leaders’ attitudes and actions manifest

a desire to serve the interests of all stakeholders (as

opposed to primarily serving self-interests), followers

experience increased well-being and growth, and them-

selves adopt a serving-others orientation similar to that of

A. Panaccio (&) Department of Management, John Molson School of Business,

Concordia University, 1455, de Maisonneuve blvd. West,

Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

D. J. Henderson

Cass Business School, London, UK

R. C. Liden � S. J. Wayne � X. Cao University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

123

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

DOI 10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z

their leader. As a consequence, they are more likely to

transcend transactional or self-seeking orientations toward

their work.

While academic research on servant leadership is still

limited, a growing body of empirical studies shows that

servant leadership is related to important organizational

outcomes (e.g., Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b).

However, this research has been largely void of clarifying

the psychological mechanisms by which, and the boundary

conditions in which, servant leader behaviors influence

follower well-being and associated outcomes (Avolio et al.

2009; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b; Yukl 2006). Our purpose in

this study is thus to enhance servant leadership theory by

integrating social exchange theory (SET; Blau 1964) and

servant leadership theory in order to identify mediating and

moderating mechanisms through which servant leadership

behaviors prompt employees to act in ways that transcend a

transactional orientation to the employment relationship.

Drawing on a review of the servant leadership literature

Liden et al. (2008) identified seven behaviors of servant

leaders, for which they developed a psychometrically

sound multidimensional measure (van Dierendonck 2011).

These include: (1) putting followers first—manifesting

through actions and words that satisfying the needs of

followers is a top priority; (2) creating value for the com-

munity—showing a genuine concern for helping the com-

munity surrounding the organization; (3) emotional

healing—attending to the emotional needs of organiza-

tional members (particularly immediate followers); (4)

empowering—providing organizational members (particu-

larly followers) with control to identify and solve organi-

zational problems; (5) helping followers grow and

succeed—showing genuine concern for followers’ career

growth and development by providing support and men-

toring; (6) behaving ethically—interacting openly, fairly,

and honestly with organizational members; and (7) con-

ceptual skills—possessing adequate knowledge of the

organization and tasks at hand so as to be able to effec-

tively support the growth and well-being of organizational

members. In accordance with this framework, we define

servant leadership as a serving-others orientation in lead-

ership, manifested through these seven behaviors and

attributes. We use the terms ‘‘servant leadership’’ or ‘‘ser-

vant leader behaviors’’ to designate the enactment of

leadership behaviors which correspond to the servant

leadership philosophy.

The mediating variable examined in this study is psy-

chological contract (PC) fulfillment. The PC is defined as

‘‘individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding

terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and

their organization’’ (Rousseau 1995, p. 9), and PC fulfill-

ment refers to perceptions that this exchange agreement has

been fulfilled by the employer. In other words, PC

fulfillment reflects the degree to which employees view

their employers as meeting implicit promises in the

employment relationship (Rousseau 1995). Because the

terms of these implicit promises are not defined and the

time-line of their delivery potentially ambiguous, theory

argues that they represent the conditions of a social

exchange between employees and their organizations

(Dulac et al. 2008). We argue that servant leadership

behaviors are positively associated with employees’ per-

ceptions of PC fulfillment. As such, servant leadership

behaviors are positively related to employee perceptions of

a positive social exchange relationship with the organiza-

tion. A contribution of our investigation is to test whether

servant leadership accounts for variance in PC fulfillment

beyond that which is explained by the alternative expla-

nations of LMX or transformational leadership. We con-

tend that servant leaders contribute to followers’

perceptions of PC fulfillment, because servant leaders place

an emphasis on fulfilling others’ needs and are therefore

highly motivated to enhance followers’ PC fulfillment.

Through PC fulfillment, we further contend that, in

accordance with SET and the reciprocity norm (Gouldner

1960), servant leaders motivate followers to engage in

behaviors that go beyond their contractually defined obli-

gations in the employment relationship, namely innovative

behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCBs). Prior theoretical and empirical work in the servant

leadership literature has not examined how servant lead-

ership practices influence the employee–organization

exchange relationship and, via reciprocity, associated out-

comes. In doing so, we address the need to theoretically

clarify the manner in which these leadership practices

enhance follower well-being and contributions to stake-

holder value creation (Avolio et al. 2009).

A second contribution of our study, as shown in Fig. 1,

is to consider boundary conditions for the relation between

servant leader behaviors and employee perceptions of PC

fulfillment. Yukl (2006) questioned whether boundary

conditions exist in the ability of servant leadership

behaviors to elicit positive follower outcomes. Yet, this

question has been unaddressed by servant leadership theory

or extant research. In line with substitutes-for-leadership

theory (Kerr and Jermier 1978), we propose and examine

employee characteristics as factors influencing the rela-

tionship between servant leadership behaviors and

employees’ PC fulfillment. Our contention is that, when

followers perceive or have the ability to obtain the

resources and rewards that contribute to PC fulfillment

from sources other than their leaders, the relationship

between servant leadership behaviors and PC fulfillment is

weakened. Certain individual differences will impact the

likelihood that followers perceive they are able to obtain

these resources. We thus examine follower characteristics

658 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

as boundary conditions that help us explain when servant

leadership enhances perceptions of PC fulfillment in the

employment relationship, prompting greater levels of

employee contributions that transcend contractual obliga-

tions in the employment relationship.

Theory and Hypotheses

Servant leadership theory (Greenleaf 1970, 1977) is unique

in its focus on how leaders’ behaviors that manifest a

commitment to prioritizing service to others above self

influence employee contributions in the employment rela-

tionship (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Gra-

ham 1991; Neubert et al. 2008; Russell and Stone 2002;

Liden et al. 2008). While servant leadership was initially

slow to attract attention from scholars, there has been a

recent increase in scientific interest in this theory. Reviews

of the servant leadership literature have been conducted

(e.g., Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dierendonck 2011),

models have been proposed (Liden et al. 2014a), and

measures of servant leadership behaviors have been

developed (Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck and Nuijten

2011). Studies have found positive relationships between

servant leadership and important outcomes, such as in-role

individual performance (Liden et al. 2008), team perfor-

mance (Schaubroeck et al. 2011), unit performance (Liden

et al. 2014b), firm performance (Peterson et al. 2012),

organizational commitment (Liden et al. 2008; van Diere-

ndonck et al. 2014), team potency and team OCB (Hu and

Liden 2011), even when controlling for transformational

leadership and/or leader–member exchange (LMX) (Liden

et al. 2008; Peterson et al. 2012; Schaubroeck et al. 2011).

Notably, an emerging line of work has uncovered positive

relationships between servant leadership, various forms of

employee well-being (Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dier-

endonck and Nuijten 2011), employee innovation (Neubert

et al. 2008), and OCB (Ehrhart 2004; Neubert et al. 2008;

Walumbwa et al. 2010)—behaviors that reflect transcen-

dence from a transactional (or self-interested) employee–

organization relationship.

Servant leadership theory proposes that when leaders

behave in a manner that is consistent with a drive to adopt

and enact a leadership role for the purpose of maximizing

stakeholder as opposed to self-interest, followers experi-

ence increased growth and well-being. As a result, follower

commitment and contributions to organizational and soci-

etal goal attainment surpass self-seeking or transactional

orientations toward their work. Indeed, a transactional

employment relationship is defined as one in which

employees view the employment relationship as a tit-for-tat

economic exchange whereby their commitment and con-

tributions to the organization are constrained to fulfilling

basic obligations in a transactional manner (Morrison and

Robinson 1997). In such an employment relationship,

employees give what has been explicitly asked of them in

the employment contract in pursuit of or in response to

their employers’ delivery of contractually defined obliga-

tions to them. By contrast, followers of servant leaders, as

they become servant leaders themselves, likely see beyond

their own self-interests and the immediate repayment of

obligations, which is characteristic of relational (vs.

transactional) exchanges (Morrison and Robinson 1997).

Research supports this aspect of the theory, as a serving

culture has been found to be an immediate result of servant

leadership (Liden et al. 2014b).

Another consequence of servant leadership is that fol-

lowers manifest greater commitment and contribution to

stakeholder value creation. Within the theory, stakeholders

are defined as organizational owners, members, and the

H2a

H2e

H2d

H2c

H2b

H1

H3a H3b H3c

Extraversion (S, T1)

Proactive personality (S, T1)

Collectivism (S, T1)

Individual Initiative (M, T2)

Interpersonal Helping (M, T2)

Personal Industry (M, T2)

Loyal Boosterism (M, T2)

Innovative Behaviors (M, T2)

Servant Leadership (S, T1)

Psychological Contract Fulfillment (S, T2)

Fig. 1 Hypothesized model: the influence of servant leadership on psychological contract fulfillment, organizational citizenship behav-

iors, and innovative behaviors. S Variable reported by subordinates,

M variable reported by managers, T1 variable measured at T1, T2

variable measured at T2

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 659

123

larger community touched by organizational activity. Ser-

vant leaders see the fulfillment of stakeholders’ needs as an

end in itself, rather than a means for contributing to

organizational success. This emphasis on fulfillment of

others’ needs as well as the devotion to improve society

through organizational activity (as opposed to enhancing

organizational outcomes without considering societal

needs) differentiates servant leadership from the related

theory of transformational leadership, currently the domi-

nant leadership paradigm in management research (Avolio

et al. 1999; Dinh et al. 2014; Podsakoff et al. 1996).

A handful of studies have examined the processes

through which servant leadership may relate to outcomes.

Neubert et al. (2008) offered (and found support for)

employees’ promotion focus—a focus on growth and

achievement at work—as a mechanism accounting for

relationships between servant leadership and employee-

helping behaviors and innovation. Ehrhart (2004) found

that unit-level procedural justice climate partially mediated

the relationship between unit-level perceptions of servant

leadership and unit-level OCB. Extending this research,

Walumbwa et al. (2010) found procedural justice climate

and service climate to mediate the relationships between

servant leadership and OCB at the group level, while self-

efficacy and commitment to the supervisor were mediators

at the individual level. However, no support was found for

the proposed moderating effect of procedural justice cli-

mate and service climate. Mayer et al. (2008) found indi-

vidual perceptions of overall organizational justice and

overall need satisfaction to mediate the relationship

between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Research

has also suggested that servant leadership may influence

follower- and team-performance outcomes via role mod-

eling and employee identification (Liden et al. 2014b).

However, little light has been shed on how, why, and under

what conditions servant leader behaviors, those that reflect

a prioritization of service to others above self in the lead-

ership role, indeed nurture follower well-being and

behaviors that surpass a transactional, or tit-for-tat

employment relationship (Avolio et al. 2009). This may be

especially salient for discretionary behaviors, such as

OCBs, given that required job performance may be seen as

an obligation for many employees, an obligation dutifully

carried out as part of a transactional exchange.

Servant leadership has been distinguished conceptually

from transformational leadership theory. First, as leader-

ship scholars have noted, transformational leadership the-

ory does not address how leaders’ self- versus stakeholder-

focused motives to adopt and enact a leadership role affect

their subsequent behavior in their roles, or how these

behaviors influence follower attitudes and contributions

(Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991). Second, while transforma-

tional leaders ultimately seek to advance organizational

interests (Bass 2000; Podsakoff et al. 1990), servant leaders

emphasize serving followers and society as their direct

goals (Graham 1991). Despite the clear focus of servant

leaders on serving followers, available empirical findings

support the contention that servant leadership indirectly

boosts organizational performance as a result of attitudinal

and behavioral benefits that followers reap from servant

leaders (Peterson et al. 2012).

Complementing the theoretical distinction between

servant and transformational leadership, research has

demonstrated empirical separation between the two con-

structs as well. Specifically, servant leadership, opera-

tionalized via Liden et al.’s (2008) seven dimensions, has

been shown to contribute incremental variance in subor-

dinate outcomes above that which is explained by trans-

formational leadership (Liden et al. 2008; Schaubroeck

et al. 2011).

Servant Leadership and PC Fulfillment

Given that servant leadership theory focuses on nurturing

stakeholder well-being, it is appropriate to consider how

this leadership approach influences follower perceptions of

PC fulfillment, which captures cognitive appraisals of well-

being in the employment relationship. Although the PC is

composed of perceived obligations of the organization (and

of the employee), the organization is necessarily repre-

sented by agents, primarily supervisors (e.g., Liden et al.

2004; Tekleab and Taylor 2003), in its exchange relation-

ship with the employee. Indeed, immediate leaders are seen

as the ‘‘chief agent for establishing and maintaining the

psychological contract’’ (Shore and Tetrick 1994, p. 101;

see also Lester et al. 2002). We propose that servant leaders

are particularly well positioned to fulfill followers’ per-

ceived organizational promises, as long as circumstances

outside of leaders’ and followers’ control, such as avail-

ability of resources, do not prevent both parties from ful-

filling contractual promises. We contend that defining

behaviors of servant leaders, particularly their prioritization

of follower needs, desires, and best interests, are perfectly

suited for following through on the delivery of perceived

organizational promises (Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991;

Liden et al. 2008). Indeed, ‘‘putting followers first’’ and

‘‘helping followers grow and succeed’’ are dimensions of

servant leadership that speak directly to the fulfillment of

follower needs that comprise the PC. In order to prioritize

the needs of followers, leaders obviously need to be aware

of those needs. Servant leaders, through listening to fol-

lowers and expressing empathy (Greenleaf 1970), develop

a generally accurate idea of their followers’ PC expecta-

tions given their high degree of awareness (Barbuto and

Wheeler 2006) and the trust that characterizes their rela-

tionships with followers (Greenleaf 1970; Schaubroeck

660 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

et al. 2011). Actively attempting to develop a thorough

understanding of each follower’s unique needs and poten-

tial positions servant leaders to be able to provide the

support necessary to fulfill follower needs. Delivering on

promises made is also consistent with an emphasis on

ethical behavior, another dimension of servant leadership

(Liden et al. 2008), as ethical behavior includes fair

treatment of employees (Brown et al. 2005) and broken

promises may create perceptions of unfairness (Gopinath

and Becker 2000).

Hypothesis 1 Supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors

are positively related to their followers’ PC fulfillment.

PC Fulfillment as a Mediator of Servant

Leadership—Outcomes Relationships

Drawing upon SET, from which PC theory derives many of

its propositions, we contend that PC fulfillment serves as a

critical mediator of the process through which servant

leadership behaviors positively influence employee extra-

role behaviors. SET is often invoked to account for

employee outcomes tied to evaluations of the PC (Coyle-

Shapiro and Conway 2004) as the PC reflects expectations

in a social, rather than economic exchange with one’s

employer. Blau (1964) differentiated between social and

economic exchanges. Social exchanges entail behaviors

that generate obligations for future, yet not explicitly

defined repayment, whereby the timing of their delivery is

not precisely specified. Because the PC has been concep-

tualized as comprising implicit, as opposed to explicitly

defined terms (Rousseau 1995), it can be viewed as per-

ceptions of the terms of a social exchange between an

employee and his or her employer. The PC represents

employee perceptions of what should or might happen as

opposed to direct promises. Thus, it is an underlying norm

of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960) as opposed to tit-for-tat

exchange that guides receiving and giving. Tit-for-tat

would imply that exact terms have been identified. How-

ever, social exchange—particularly as it relates to the

PC—would mean that employees give to their organiza-

tions with the belief that at some point in the future they

will be rewarded from their organizations. PC fulfillment

implies that employees perceive beneficial cycles of social

exchange. This forms the global belief that as one gives to

the organization, one receives positive rewards in return.

In essence, SET argues that as cycles of reciprocity

benefit partners, they exhibit greater propensity to offer

contributions that surpass contractual obligations in the

relationship. Otherwise said, as partners perceive benefit

and/or well-being in a social exchange relationship, they

are more likely to engage in acts that have not been con-

tractually defined (Blau 1964; Henderson et al. 2008).

Reciprocity, rather than contractual obligation, is the

mechanism that is offered to account for continued

exchange. As individuals receive, they reciprocate by

giving. As such, it is not surprising that positive relation-

ships between PC fulfillment and employee attitudes and

behaviors that surpass economic employment relationships

have been discovered through meta-analyses (Zhao et al.

2007).

Employees’ OCBs and innovative behaviors represent

two such examples. OCBs are behaviors that contribute to

organizational effectiveness, but are generally not explic-

itly required of employees nor formally rewarded (Organ

1997). In the current study, we rely on Moorman and

Blakely’s (1995) conceptualization of OCB (based on

Graham 1989), which comprises four types of behavior:

interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal

industry, and loyal boosterism. Interpersonal helping refers

to helping coworkers in their jobs; individual initiative

focuses on communicating ideas or opinions intended to

improve individual or group performance (or encouraging

these opinions from others); personal industry addresses

performance above and beyond the call of duty; and loyal

boosterism refers to promoting the image of the organiza-

tion to outsiders. These behaviors were examined as out-

comes in the present study because, along with innovation,

they are manifestations of a willingness to go beyond

contractually defined pursuits in the employment relation-

ship. Importantly, these four behaviors have different

organizational constituencies as their primary beneficiary.

Indeed, interpersonal helping primarily benefits the

employee’s coworkers, while loyal boosterism benefits the

organization as a whole. As for individual initiative and

personal industry, they benefit both the leader, as enhanced

subordinate individual and team performance reflects pos-

itively on the leader, and the organization as a whole.

Because servant leaders are thought to instill in followers a

desire to serve similar to their own (Greenleaf 1970; Liden

et al. 2008; Liden et al. 2014b), the reciprocation which we

expect to occur in response to servant leadership behaviors

is likely to go beyond behaviors that primarily benefit the

leader. Thus, reciprocation of PC fulfillment resulting from

servant leadership likely includes behaviors that benefit

these different constituencies.

Employees’ innovative behaviors reflect the generation,

testing, and implementation of novel ideas (Krause 2004).

Similar to OCBs, they are beneficial to the organization,

but are generally not specifically required in the formal

employment contract (Basu and Green 1997). For example,

Neubert et al. (2008) found a positive relationship between

servant leadership and self-reported innovative behaviors.

Consistent with arguments that followers’ well-being

accounts for their positive responses to servant leadership

practices (Graham 1991; Greenleaf 1970, 1977; Neubert

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 661

123

et al. 2008), as well as the tenets of SET, we anticipate PC

fulfillment to mediate relationships between servant lead-

ership and employees’ OCBs and innovative behaviors.

Hypothesis 2 Employees’ PC fulfillment mediates posi-

tive relationships between supervisors’ servant leadership

behaviors and employees’ (a) interpersonal helping,

(b) individual initiative, (c) personal industry, (d) loyal

boosterism, and (e) innovative behaviors.

The Moderating Effect of Subordinate Characteristics

It has been questioned whether servant leadership practices

are equally effective across situations (Yukl 2006). For

instance, follower-level dispositional factors may shape the

degree to which such an altruistic and service-focused

model of leadership influences PC fulfillment. We contend

that some followers, due to particular characteristics, have

greater access to alternate sources of PC fulfillment, such

as other powerful individuals within the organization,

mentors, or coworkers. Among these followers, low levels

of servant leadership behaviors may thus be compensated

by other sources of PC fulfillment. This argument is con-

sistent with substitutes-for-leadership theory (Kerr and

Jermier 1978), which proposes that leadership influence is

contingent upon, among other factors, individual charac-

teristics of subordinates.

Kerr and Jermier (1978) initially identified subordinates’

need for independence, professional orientation and indif-

ference toward organizational rewards as subordinate

characteristics likely to neutralize the effect of relationship-

oriented leadership, a leadership style similar to servant

leadership as it is described as a supportive, people-cen-

tered leadership characterized by consideration, support

and concern for the subordinate’s welfare. However, the

moderating effect of these subordinate characteristics has

not received empirical support (Dionne et al. 2002; Pod-

sakoff and Mackenzie 1997). One reason for this may be

that the relevant subordinate characteristics, those likely to

be substitutes for leadership in a particular situation,

depend on the criterion variable. Thus, it may be important

to examine subordinate characteristics which, with regards

to a particular criterion, may substitute for leadership

behaviors. In the current study, extraversion, proactive

personality and collectivism were examined as potential

moderators of the relationship between servant leader

behaviors and PC fulfillment, because these characteristics

relate to the degree to which followers have access to

rewards and resources that contribute to PC fulfillment

from sources other than their leaders. These traits should

thus result in these followers being less dependent upon

their leaders to obtain resources and rewards that contribute

to PC fulfillment.

The broad trait of extraversion has been conceptualized

as containing an agency component, which involves

ambition, dominance and reward sensitivity, and an affili-

ation component, comprised of sociability, enjoying and

valuing relationships with others (Bauer et al. 2006; Depue

and Collins 1999). Extroverts are thus sociable, assertive,

and ambitious (Barrick et al. 2001). As they are sociable,

they likely develop relationships with an extended network

of individuals throughout the organization (Kalish and

Robins 2006). As they are ambitious, they may specifically

target people in positions of power—individuals who are in

a position to provide resources and fulfill expectations.

This is in line with research suggesting extroverts are more

likely to build social capital than introverts (e.g., Okun

et al. 2007). Because they are assertive, they likely ver-

balize their expectations in the employment relationship,

including terms of the PC and whether they perceive

promises have been fulfilled. As a result, extroverts may

have at their disposal an extended network of people in the

organization (Bauer et al. 2006), who are able to act as

agents in assisting with the fulfillment of perceived orga-

nizational promises, making them less dependent upon

servant leadership behaviors for that purpose.

Proactive personality refers to the proclivity to take

initiative in improving current circumstances or creating

new ones (Crant 2000). Proactive individuals adopt an

active role in their approach toward work, actively seeking

information and opportunities and removing obstacles

which prevent job and career satisfaction (Crant 2000;

Erdogan and Bauer 2005). They are more likely to use

voice—constructive, change-oriented communication

intended to improve the situation (LePine and Van Dyne

2001)—to signal opportunities for improvement (Fuller

and Marler 2009), which makes them more likely to

express their level of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction)

regarding fulfillment of their PC. Further, like extroverts,

these individuals are particularly inclined to engage in

networking to develop their social capital (Thomas et al.

2010; Thompson 2005), because it offers a way to improve

one’s situation within the organization. Their networking

efforts, especially those directed toward higher level alters

in different functional areas of the organization (Seibert

et al. 2001), may make them likely to win powerful allies—

individuals who are in a position to contribute to fulfilling

their PCs. Finally, proactive employees build relationships

with coworkers early in the employment relationship (Chan

and Schmitt 2000), which may also contribute in expanding

the network of individuals able to help fulfill their PC.

Lastly, collectivism is the degree to which individuals

view themselves as interdependent with selected others

(Triandis 1995). Often studied at the societal level, col-

lectivism can also be examined as an individual-level

variable given the existence of within-country

662 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

heterogeneity (Oyserman et al. 2002; Triandis et al. 1985).

Collectivistic individuals place high value on establishing

and maintaining strong ties with group members (Boya-

cigiller and Adler 1991). Research suggests they have more

informal contacts with their coworkers, know the staff

better, are more likely to work in teams (Bochner and

Hesketh 1994), and receive more social support (Triandis

et al. 1985) than individualists. We argue that collectivistic

individuals are thus more likely to have invested time and

effort into developing relationships with other individuals

in the organization—such as coworkers—who can con-

tribute to fulfilling their PC, thus making their PC fulfill-

ment less associated with leader behavior.

In sum, based on the substitutes for leadership frame-

work, we propose that individuals who are higher on

extraversion, proactive personality, and collectivism rely

less on the leader in fulfilling their PCs. Specifically, we

expect that servant leadership behaviors are less strongly

related to perceived PC fulfillment among followers high

on extraversion, proactive personality, and collectivism;

these individual differences serving as boundary conditions

for the impact of servant leadership on PC fulfillment.

Hypothesis 3 Extraversion (a), proactive personality

(b) and collectivism (c) moderate the indirect relationship

between supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors and

employee outcomes (interpersonal helping, individual ini-

tiative, personal industry, loyal boosterism, and innovative

behaviors) through PC fulfillment, such that these rela-

tionships are weaker among individuals high on these

characteristics.

Methods

Sample and Procedure

Data were collected at two points in time, separated by

4 months, from supervisors and subordinates of two loca-

tions of a production and distribution company—both of

which were located in the Midwestern USA. The main

purpose of the multiple-time period design was to reduce

same-source common method variance (Podsakoff et al.

2003). The 4-month lag was identified as being long

enough to reduce the likelihood that responses coexist in

short-term memory or that common contextual cues influ-

ence responses, but not so long that it masks relationships

between variables. This time lag was also chosen to pro-

duce the highest response rates (we collected the data at

times of the year when the employees tended to be less

busy). All organizational members were invited to partic-

ipate in the research project and participation was com-

pletely voluntary. All participants were asked to complete

written surveys during paid working hours in the presence

of one of the researchers. Supervisors and subordinates

completed their surveys in separate rooms. Absentee

packets were left for organizational members who were

unable to attend one of the data collection sessions. These

packets included copies of the survey and stamped enve-

lopes addressed to the principal investigator.

At Time one (T1), 164 subordinates (response

rate = 56.9 %) and 25 supervisors (response

rate = 86.2 %) participated. At Time two (T2), all orga-

nizational members, regardless of their participation at T1

were invited to participate, yielding responses from 200

subordinates (response rate = 67.3 %) and 26 supervisors

(response rate = 86.7 %). No significant differences were

found for the variables included in this study between

individuals who responded at both T1 and T2 and those

who only responded at T1. Of those individuals who par-

ticipated at both time periods, complete data on all vari-

ables of interest were available for 101 supervisor–

subordinate dyads, contained in 23 supervisor work groups

(effective response rate = 34 % inclusive of 23

supervisors).

The average relationship tenure of the supervisor–sub-

ordinate dyads included in our analysis was 2.3 years.

Subordinates reported an average organizational tenure of

6.7 years and average job tenure of 3.6 years. Their aver-

age age was 37.6 years and 69.3 % were male. Regarding

the highest level of education attained, 5.1 % reported

holding no degree, 59.2 % reported a high school diploma,

15.3 % had completed a professional training program,

11.2 % held an associate’s degree, and 9.2 % had earned a

bachelor’s degree. Among subordinates, 9.0 % indicated

their race as African American, 7.0 % Hispanic/Latino/

Latina, and 83.0 % Caucasian. Supervisors reported an

average organizational tenure of 12.8 years and average

job tenure of 4.6 years. Their average age was 41.1 years

and 82.4 % were male. Among supervisors, 5.9 % indi-

cated their race as African American, 5.9 % Hispanic/

Latino/Latina, 5.9 % Asian/Pacific Islander, and 82.4 %

Caucasian. With regards to education, 52.9 % indicated

their highest educational level was a high school diploma,

29.4 % reported completing a professional training pro-

gram, and 17.6 % held an associate’s degree.

Measures

At T1, subordinates provided ratings of their characteristics

and their supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors. At T2,

subordinates provided ratings of their PC fulfillment. Also

at T2, supervisors provided ratings of subordinates’ OCBs

and innovative behaviors. Unless otherwise indicated,

responses to all measures were elicited on 7-point Likert

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 663

123

type scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (7).

Servant Leadership

We measured servant leadership with a 28-item multidi-

mensional scale (Liden et al. 2008), comprised of four

items for each of its seven dimensions, that was summed to

generate one composite servant leadership score. This scale

measures seven dimensions of servant leadership (emo-

tional healing, creating value for the community, concep-

tual skills, empowering subordinates, helping subordinates

grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, and behaving

ethically) that Liden et al. (2008) theoretically identified

and then validated through exploratory and confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA). Higher-order CFA results presented

by Hu and Liden (2011, p. 855) demonstrated that the

seven dimensions load onto a second (or higher)-order

factor, thus providing empirical support for combining all

28 items to create a global index of servant leadership.

Support for the latent, higher-order servant leadership

construct has also been demonstrated by Schaubroeck et al.

(2011) with a sample of 999 financial services employees

representing Hong Kong and USA offices of the same

organization.

Thus, the 28 items were summed to create one com-

posite variable. An example item from this scale is ‘‘My

manager sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my needs’’

(a = .94).

Psychological Contract Fulfillment

We adapted and built upon Rousseau’s (1990) measure of

employers’ obligations in the employment relationship to

derive a 10-item measure of PC fulfillment. Rousseau

identified seven currencies of exchange (promotion

opportunities, fair pay, pay based on my current level of

performance, training, long-term job security, career

development and support with personal problems) that

employees may perceive as obligated to them in the PC. To

better tap the construct domain, we added three additional

items (interesting work, sufficient power and responsibility,

and authority to make decisions) that have been shown to

correlate with satisfaction with work (Loher et al. 1985)

and therefore may well also represent dimensions of the

PC. On a scale ranging from 1 (provided much less than

promised) to 5 (provided much more than promised), we

asked respondents to indicate the degree to which the

organization had fulfilled its perceived promises along

these ten currencies.

Because we slightly altered Rousseau’s (1990) scale, we

conducted a principal axis factor analysis given our

hypothesized one-factor solution. The results of this factor

analysis suggested a two-factor solution, with three items

cross-loading at above .3. These three items were deleted

from the analysis, and the principal axis factor analysis was

rerun. In this instance, a clean one-factor solution with no

cross-loadings emerged that explained 51.92 % of the

variance. We therefore summed these seven items into a

composite measure 1 (a = .88).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Supervisors were asked to rate subordinates on four

dimensions of OCB (interpersonal helping, individual ini-

tiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism) using the

multidimensional scale developed by Moorman and Blak-

ely (1995) based on Graham’s (1989) conceptualization of

OCB. The scale was employed without modification except

that one of the items presented by Moorman and Blakely

(1995) to capture loyal boosterism—‘‘This individual

encourages friends and family to utilize organization pro-

ducts’’—was omitted because it would not have been

meaningful to the sample used in this study. Summated

scale scores were created for each dimension of OCB

captured by the full scale. Example items are ‘‘This indi-

vidual goes out of his/her way to help coworkers with

work-related problems’’ (interpersonal helping; a = .83); ‘‘This individual often motivates others to express their

ideas and opinions’’ (individual initiative; a = .86); ‘‘This individual rarely misses work even when he/she has a

legitimate reason for doing so’’ (personal industry,

a = .78); ‘‘This individual shows pride when representing the organization in public’’ (loyal boosterism, a = .80).

Innovative Behaviors

Five items were employed to measure employees’ inno-

vative behaviors. Four items were taken from Scott and

Bruce’s (1994) innovative behavior measure. The fifth item

(‘‘This individual wins the support of others necessary for

his/her ideas to succeed’’) was added to better capture the

construct and further assess the degree to which an indi-

vidual is willing to seek sponsorship for his or her ideas—

which is theoretically part of the construct definition

(Kanter, 1988). An example item from the Scott and Bruce

(1994) measure is ‘‘This individual searches out new

1 Although the results presented here are based on this composite

measure, as a check on the veridicality of our revised measure, we

conducted the same set of analyses using our 10-item composite scale

and Rousseau’s (1990) seven-item PC measure. Specifically, we

tested our mediation hypotheses following Bauer et al.’s (2006)

approach and tested the moderation effects using HLM. The results

using different PC measures are not significantly different and are

available from the authors upon request.

664 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas’’

(a = .89).

Extraversion

We measured extraversion using the eight items capturing

this construct from Saucier’s (1994) 40-item short form of

Goldberg’s (1992) 100-item scale. On a scale of 1 (extre-

mely inaccurate) to 7 (extremely accurate), respondents

were asked to indicate how accurate items (which are

adjectives in this scale) were in describing them. Example

items are talkative and shy (reverse-coded) (a = .77).

Proactive Personality

Proactive personality was measured using Parker’s (1998)

six-item short form of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) mea-

sure. These six items showed good internal consistency in

the Parker study (a = .85). An example item for this measure is ‘‘No matter what the odds, if I believe in

something I will make it happen’’ (a = .87).

Collectivism

We used two high-loading items from Earley’s (1993)

instrument to assess individual-level collectivism. We

selected these items on the basis of how well they repre-

sented an individual’s desire for a more collective, rather

than individual, approach to work as well as one’s prefer-

ence for a more collective than individual work identity.

An example item is ‘‘One does better work working alone

than in a group’’ (reverse-coded) (r = .59, p \ .01).

Control Variables

Because our participants were employed in two distinct

facilities, it was necessary to consider the potential effects

that plant location may have had on the dependent vari-

ables we measured. A dummy-coded variable was created

to capture subordinates’ work locations, such that mem-

bership in location one was contrasted with membership in

location two. Furthermore, LMX quality, or the quality of

the interpersonal exchange relationship between a leader

and a follower, has been shown to be significantly related

to both PC fulfillment (Henderson et al. 2008) and

employees’ extra-role behaviors at work (Ilies et al. 2007).

Therefore, LMX quality was also included as a control and

was measured using Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) 12-item

scale (a = .91). An example item is ‘‘I like my manager very much as a person.’’ Finally, transformational leader-

ship, the dominant approach to leadership in the manage-

ment literature, might well lead to increased levels of PC

fulfillment as well as followers’ extra-role behaviors

(Podsakoff et al. 1996). Transformational leadership was

also therefore included as a control variable to rule out this

alternative explanation. We measured transformational

leadership using the 20-item transformational leadership

scale from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ; Avolio et al. 1995). An example item is ‘‘My

manager talks optimistically about the future’’ (a = .92).

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs)

Liden et al. (2008) examined the appropriateness of their

scale for measuring distinct dimensions of servant leader-

ship, and Hu and Liden (2011) demonstrated that these

dimensions were reflective of a higher-order latent con-

struct. We chose to conduct two CFAs to determine the

degree to which the seven dimensions represented a higher-

order construct of servant leadership in our data. We

compared a seven-factor model whereby all items loaded

onto their respective factors (v2 (329) = 517.13, CFI = .96, NFI = .90, SRMR = .08) to a second model in

which the seven factors were indicative of a higher-order

construct (v2 (343) = 531.44, CFI = .95, NFI = .90, SRMR = .08). While the Chi square of the second model

was slightly higher than that of the first, their difference

was not significant (Dv2 (14) = 14.31, p [ .05). Further- more, some have argued that the Chi square test is prob-

lematic—particularly when sample sizes are small as in

this research—and instead suggest examining the differ-

ences between models’ AIC (Akaike Information Criterion;

Vandenberg and Grelle 2009). AIC is a comparative

measure of model fit that assesses the degree to which the

fitted values deviate from a saturated model. Lower values

of AIC indicate a better fitting model. The AIC of the

higher-order servant leadership model was lower (657.44)

than that of the model that did not include the higher-order

latent factor (671.13), indicating that the model that

included the higher-order factor is indeed the better fitting

model.

Moreover, we conducted CFAs to determine whether the

measures of OCB constructs (interpersonal helping, indi-

vidual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism)

and innovative behaviors captured distinctive constructs.

The first CFA specified five factors with all items loaded on

their respective dimensions. This five-factor model yielded

good fit, v2 (220) = 461.45, CFI = .93, NFI = .88, SRMR = .09, AIC = 573.45. This model was superior to

alternative models with fewer factors (for the two-factor

model, where OCB and innovative behaviors were two

distinct factors, AIC = 851.82; for the 1-factor model,

where all items are loaded on the same factor,

AIC = 912.85). The five-factor model also better fits the

data than models with one higher-order factor (when all

items are loaded on their respective factors, and four OCB

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 665

123

dimensions loaded on one higher-order factor,

AIC = 588.48; when all items are loaded on their respec-

tive factors, and all five factors loaded on one higher-order

factor, AIC = 588.47). These results indicate that accept-

able discriminant validity existed for our key outcome

variables.

Data Analysis

To test our hypothesized relationships, we incorporated the

stepwise procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986)

and facilitated estimation of the indirect effects through the

application of parametric bootstrapped confidence intervals

(CIs). The present data contained a hierarchical structure in

which responses of individual-level variables are nested

within work teams. Therefore, we followed Bauer et al.’s

(2006) guidelines to estimate our hypothesized mediation

relationships simultaneously using hierarchical linear

modeling (HLM). The use of HLM allowed us to account

for any potential dependencies in the data due to similar

workgroup membership and therefore control for any

group-level influences on the dependent variables. The

Monte Carlo method recommended by Preacher et al.

(2010) was also used to estimate confidence intervals for

the hypothesized mediated relationships to determine their

significance. 2

In our data, 101 subordinates constituted the level-one

(L1) cases nested within the level-two (L2) workgroups

(n = 23). For all models tested, the hypothesized L1 pre-

dictors were entered grand mean centered with the excep-

tion of the interaction terms as they were products of grand

mean centered variables.

L1 slopes were fixed across all L2 units. Fixing the

slopes did not inhibit the adequate testing of our hypoth-

eses (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Full maximum likeli-

hood estimation was used so that deviance tests could be

conducted to indicate effect size (Raudenbush and Bryk

2002). Deviance tests are analogous to Chi square tests in

structural equations modeling or R 2 tests in ordinary least

squares regression.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations

among the study variables are presented in Table 1.

We first ran fully unconditional models, equivalent to

one-way ANOVAs, for all of the dependent variables in

our study to explore the within and between-group vari-

ability in these observations. Perceptions of PC fulfillment

(s00 = .05, v 2 (22) = 28.03, p [ .05; ICC = .09) did not

exhibit significant between-group variability, but the

results did indicate significant between-group variability in

supervisor ratings of subordinate interpersonal helping

(s00 = .38, v 2 (22) = 94.37, p \ .01; ICC = .46), individ-

ual initiative (s00 = .47, v 2 (22) = 93.94, p \ .01;

ICC = .52), personal industry (s00 = .65, v2(22) = 197.00, p \ .01; ICC = .66), loyal boosterism (s00 = .71, v

2 (22) = 126.26, p \ .01; ICC = .62), and

innovative behaviors (s00 = .59, v 2 (22) = 80.91, p \ .01;

ICC = .45). These results suggested the presence of a

significant nesting effect within the data (101 subordinates

constituted the level-one cases nested within the 23 level-

two workgroups) and the need for using multilevel mod-

eling to account for group or supervisor level factors that

were not hypothesized which may have influenced our

findings.

Before testing the hypothesized model, we examined the

relationships between the control and dependent variables.

All control variables (plant location, LMX, and transfor-

mational leadership) were entered simultaneously as level-

one predictors of the dependent variables. While work-

groups were, themselves, nested in two distinct locations,

the number of locations (n = 2) was too small to support

the adequate examination of a three-level model (Rau-

denbush and Bryk 2002). Therefore, to examine the influ-

ence of subordinates’ work locations on the dependent

variables, we employed the OLS regression technique of

entering a dummy-coded variable at L1 (Cohen et al.

2003). The results suggested a significant relationship

between plant location and personal industry (c = -.71, p \ .05), and loyal boosterism (c = -.69, p \ .05). Therefore, location was retained when examining the

relationships concerning personal industry and loyal

boosterism. Transformational leadership also emerged as

having a significant relationship with innovative behaviors

(c = .47, p \ .05) and was therefore retained when examining relationships concerning innovative behaviors.

Supporting Hypothesis 1, the results presented in

Table 2 reveal a significant positive relationship between

servant leadership at T1 and PC fulfillment at T2

(c10 = .44, p \ .01). Model deviance was significantly reduced by the inclusion of servant leadership into the

model (v2(1) = 29.49, p \ .01).3

2 An open-source software R-based simulator can be found at http://

www.quantpsy.org.

3 It should be noted that although we decided not to include control

variables that did not exhibit significant relationships with the

dependent variables in the models used for hypothesis testing, we did

examine the relationship between servant leadership and PC fulfill-

ment in a model that included plant location, LMX, and transforma-

tional leadership as predictors of PC fulfillment, given the importance

of this variable in the model. The results of this analysis indicated a

significant and positive relationship between servant leadership and

PC fulfillment (c = .62, p \ .01), and model deviance was signifi- cantly reduced by the addition of this predictor (v2(1) = 10.12,

666 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

To explore Hypotheses 2a through 2e regarding the

mediating role of PC fulfillment between servant leader-

ship at T1 and the subordinate outcomes at T2, we first

examined the direct relationships between servant leader-

ship and the outcomes. These results are presented in

Table 3. Servant leadership only exhibited significant and

direct relationships with interpersonal helping (c = .18, p \ .05) and individual initiative (c = .21, p \ .05).

Next, both servant leadership at T1 and PC fulfillment at

T2 were entered as L1 predictors (along with the associated

control variables, when appropriate) of the T2 subordinate

outcomes. These results are presented in Table 4. When

controlling for servant leadership at T1, PC fulfillment

demonstrated significant effects on subordinates’ individ-

ual initiative (c10 = .27, p \ .05), loyal boosterism (c30 = .27, p \ .05), and innovative behaviors (c30 = .44, p \ .01) at T2. The inclusion of PC fulfillment resulted in a significant reduction in model deviance from models con-

taining only servant leadership and the appropriate controls

for the following models: v2(1) = 5.41 p \ .05 for loyal boosterism; and v2(1) = 9.90, p \ .01 for innovative behaviors. PC fulfillment was not significantly related to

interpersonal helping (c20 = .15 p [ .05) or personal industry (c30 = .06 p [ .05).

Furthermore, we formulated the mediation models with

a single L1 equation through the use of selection variables

(Bauer et al., 2006), and estimated the mediation rela-

tionships simultaneously in HLM. With 10,000 Monte

Carlo replications, results showed that there was a positive

indirect relationship between servant leadership at T1 and

subordinates’ individual initiative (indirect effect = .13,

95 % bias-corrected bootstrap CI [.005, .272]), and inno-

vative behaviors (indirect effect = .19, 95 % bias-cor-

rected bootstrap CI [.054, .343]) at T2 via PC fulfillment.

Footnote 3 continued

p \ .01). None of the other predictors (plant location, LMX, or transformational leadership) exhibited a significant relationship with

PC fulfillment when they were included simultaneously with servant

leadership. These findings provide further evidence that servant

leadership explains variance in PC fulfillment beyond what is

explained by these alternative explanations. They also further suggest

that any mediating effect of PC fulfillment between servant leadership

and the associated outcomes cannot be explained by these other

factors.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Location 1.30 0.46

2 Leader–member exchange 5.41 1.01 -.01

3 Transformational leadership 4.91 0.93 .01 .84**

4 Servant leadership 4.81 0.89 -.09 .83** .87**

5 Extraversion 4.76 0.88 .14 .14 .17 .18

6 Proactive personality 5.42 0.88 .02 .45** .46** .40** .21*

7 Collectivism 3.98 1.43 -.10 .05 .00 .08 .09 -.08

8 Psychological contract

fulfillment

3.21 0.75 -.11 .39** .41** .53** .24* .29** .14

9 Interpersonal helping 5.23 0.86 -.10 .14 .18 .23* -

.10

.05 .15 .19

10 Individual initiative 4.89 0.86 .15 .14 .26* .24* .12 .07 .12 .22* .68**

11 Personal industry 5.31 0.93 -

.37**

.02 .11 .10 -

.11

.01 .07 .11 .55** .39**

12 Loyal boosterism 4.82 0.93 -

.32**

-.04 .06 .13 .02 -.03 .15 .24* .37** .49** .26**

13 Innovative behaviors 4.62 1.06 -.13 .09 .25* .24* .08 .14 .13 .32** .66** .67** .64** .48**

n = 101

* p \ .05 ** p \ .01

Table 2 The relationship between servant leadership and psycho- logical contract fulfillment

Variable Psychological contract fulfillment

Intercept 3.21**

Servant Leadership .44**

Deviance 200.36

D Deviance df (1) 29.49**

n = 101 (L1); 23 (L2)

** p \ .01

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 667

123

However, the indirect effects on loyal boosterism (indirect

effect = .11, 95 % bias-corrected bootstrap CI [-.027,

.256]), interpersonal helping (indirect effect = .08, 95 %

bias-corrected bootstrap CI [-.029, .190]), and personal

industry (indirect effect = .02, 95 % bias-corrected boot-

strap CI [-.096, .131]) were not supported by the Monte

Carlo confidence intervals (CIs).

Together, our analyses and these results offer support for

Hypotheses 2b and 2e. Partial support was found for

Hypothesis 2d. No support was found for Hypotheses 2a

and 2c.

Finally, we examined the hypotheses pertaining to the

moderated relationship between servant leadership at T1

and PC fulfillment at T2. The results of the models used to

explore these hypotheses are presented in Table 5. Support

was found for Hypothesis 3a as the servant leadership by

extraversion interaction term was significantly related to

PC fulfillment (c30 = -.16, p \ .05) and model deviance was significantly reduced by its inclusion (v2(1) = 5.44, p \ .05). To better understand the nature of the interaction, the relationship between servant leadership and PC ful-

fillment was plotted at high and low (±1 SD) levels of

extraversion. These results are depicted in Fig. 2. As

shown, servant leadership is more strongly and positively

related to perceptions of PC fulfillment when extraversion

is low. Hypothesis 3c also received support, as the servant

leadership by collectivism interaction term was signifi-

cantly related to PC fulfillment (c30 = -.21, p \ .01) and model deviance was significantly reduced by its inclusion

(v2(1) = 6.85, p \ .01). To better understand the nature of the interaction, we plotted the relationship between servant

leadership and PC fulfillment at high and low (±1 SD)

levels of collectivism. These results are depicted in Fig. 3.

As shown, servant leadership is more strongly and posi-

tively related to perceptions of PC fulfillment when col-

lectivism is low. No support was found for Hypothesis 3b,

as the interaction term of proactive personality and servant

leadership was not significantly related to PC fulfillment

(c30 = .02, p [ .05).

Discussion

Servant leadership theory suggests that servant leaders’

motives place others’ interests above their own, resulting in

followers with enhanced growth and well-being and strong

desires to engage in behaviors that benefit stakeholders as

well (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Graham

Table 3 The direct relationship between servant leadership and

the subordinate level outcomes

n = 101 (L1); 23 (L2)

* p \ .05 ** p \ .01

Variable Interpersonal

helping

Individual

initiative

Personal

industry

Loyal

boosterism

Innovative

behaviors

Intercept 5.35** 4.91** 5.43** 4.83** 4.73**

Plant location -.76* -.68*

Transformational leadership .16

Servant leadership .18* .21* .02 .09 .07

Deviance 233.31 235.73 219.11 243.53 285.34

D Deviance df (1) 3.66 5.37** 2.30* 1.86 .66

Table 4 The mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment

Variable Interpersonal helping Individual initiative Personal industry Loyal boosterism Innovative behaviors

Intercept 5.35** 4.90** 5.43** 4.82** 4.72**

Plant location -.74** -.61*

Transformational leadership .25

Servant leadership .13 .11 .00 -.01 -.18

Psychological contract fulfillment .15 .27* .06 .27* .44**

Deviance 235.90 233.78 219.76 238.12 275.44

D Deviance df (1)a -2.59 1.95 -.65 5.41** 9.90**

n = 101 (L1); 23 (L2)

* p \ .05 ** p \ .01 a The deviance of the hypothesized model was compared against the deviance of a model which included only servant leadership and the

appropriate control variables as L1 predictors

668 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

1991; Neubert et al. 2008; Russell and Stone 2002; Liden

et al. 2008). This study sought to enhance servant leader-

ship theory by drawing upon SET (Blau 1964) to under-

stand why, and under what conditions, servant leadership

behaviors motivate followers to engage in extra-role

behaviors in the workplace. Specifically, we proposed that

servant leadership, conceptualized as leader behavior that

reflects a prioritization of stakeholder over self interests in

the leadership role (Greenleaf 1970, 1977), enhances fol-

lower well-being through PC fulfillment and, in turn, fol-

lowers’ extra-role contributions. Moreover, we proposed

that individual differences which predispose followers to

have access to rewards and resources from sources other

than their leader, thus making them less dependent upon

their leaders for PC fulfillment, constitute boundary con-

ditions which influence the strength of the relationship

between servant leadership behaviors and follower

outcomes.

Theoretical Implications

Contributing to the PC, organizational citizenship, inno-

vation, and servant leadership literatures, our results iden-

tified PC fulfillment as a key process through which servant

leadership influences follower engagement in personal

initiative and boosterism citizenship behaviors as well as

innovative behaviors. We suggest that servant leaders ful-

fill followers’ PCs in two ways: (1) by engaging in

behaviors that meet their followers’ needs as represented

by their PCs, and (2) by creating a social exchange and

thus, the expectation that obligations will be fulfilled in the

future (if they have been missed in the present). In terms of

Table 5 The moderated relationship between servant leadership and psychological contract fulfillment

Variable Psychological contract fulfillment as outcome

Extraversion as moderator Proactive personality as moderator Collectivism as moderator

Intercept 3.24** 3.20** 3.23**

Servant leadership .38** .41** .41**

Moderator .12 .09 .05

Servant leadership 9 moderator -.16* .02 -.21**

Deviance 197.01 205.93 198.39

D Deviance df (1)a 5.44* -1.53 6.85**

n = 101 (L1); 23 (L2)

* p \ .05 ** p \ .01 a The deviance of the hypothesized model was compared against a model that included only servant leadership and the direct effect of the

appropriate moderating variable as L1 predictors

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

Low SL High SL

Low Extraversion

High Extraversion

PC F

ul fi

llm en

t

Fig. 2 The moderating role of extraversion in the relationship between servant leadership and psychological contract fulfillment.

SL Servant leadership, PC psychological contract

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

Low SL High SL

Low Collectivism

High Collectivism

PC F

ul fi

llm en

t

Fig. 3 The moderating role of collectivism in the relationship between servant leadership and psychological contract fulfillment.

SL Servant leadership, PC psychological contract

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 669

123

the first process, there are a number of servant leader

behaviors that likely contribute to the fulfillment of their

followers’ PCs. In particular, servant leaders put followers

first, listen to followers’ needs and concerns, and maintain

high ethical standards. These qualities imply that servant

leaders engage in a high level of effort to recognize,

understand, and fulfill their employees’ PCs, as evidenced

in our study. Often, miscommunication and inaccurate

expectations are causes of low PC fulfillment (Tekleab and

Taylor 2003), and these are less likely to be experienced by

followers of servant leaders. Other servant leader behaviors

that are likely to enhance PC fulfillment are empowering

their subordinates and helping them grow and succeed.

Theoretically, this suggests that servant leaders communi-

cate and understand their followers’ expectations, follow

through on commitments, and fulfill their followers’

expectations. It also suggests that servant leadership is

more than verbal statements, but rather involves behaviors

that followers desire and recognize as fulfillment of their

PCs. An explanation for these findings is that servant leader

behaviors align closely with followers’ expectations or

qualities they desire in a leader. Future research should

examine our supposition that the behaviors followers desire

and expect from their leaders are those associated with

servant leadership. This may provide greater insights into

whether and why servant leadership is associated with

greater PC fulfillment.

In addition to PC fulfillment being related to servant

leadership, we also found PC fulfillment to mediate the

relations between servant leadership and two forms of

citizenship behavior and innovative behavior. Prior

research has found support for a relation between aggre-

gated servant leadership and OCB at the group level

(Ehrhart 2004), and individual level servant leadership and

innovation (Neubert et al. 2008). Our results extend these

findings by identifying the processes through which servant

leadership affects these outcomes. Consistent with SET,

our results suggest that servant leadership enhances fol-

lowers’ PC fulfillment and, in turn, followers reciprocate

with behaviors that benefit the organization and that go

beyond their contractual obligations. These include OCBs

and innovative behaviors, which are typically not man-

dated, but are beneficial to organizational functioning.

A surprising finding was that PC fulfillment was related

to only two of the four OCBs. PC fulfillment was not

related to interpersonal helping, or to personal industry.

One potential explanation for the nonsignificant effect for

interpersonal helping is based on the target similarity

model (Lavelle et al. 2007), which suggests that individuals

develop distinct perceptions and attitudes toward different

targets such as the organization, leaders, and coworkers. In

turn, individuals’ perceptions of a target influence their

citizenship behavior toward that particular target. Thus,

followers tend to reciprocate for PC fulfillment in terms of

behaviors that more directly benefit the leader and orga-

nization overall, rather than coworkers in particular

(Turnley et al. 2003). Among the OCBs examined in our

study, interpersonal helping directly benefits coworkers,

whereas the other OCB dimensions are less specific in

terms of the beneficiary target. So, although followers

reciprocate for favorable treatment (i.e., servant leadership

behavior) by their leader in terms of outcomes that benefit

the organization, it does not appear that reciprocation

includes behaviors that directly benefit coworkers. Because

leaders are often viewed as agents of the organization with

responsibility for fulfilling the PC (Shore and Tetrick

1994), PC fulfillment is more likely to relate to behaviors

that benefit the organization rather than a specific group

such as coworkers.

The other OCB dimension that was not related to PC

fulfillment was personal industry. These behaviors consist

of: rarely missing work; performing duties with unusually

few errors; performing duties with extra care; and always

meeting or beating deadlines for completing work. A

potential explanation for these nonsignificant results is that

these behaviors may have been viewed as in-role rather

than extra-role behavior in the participating organization.

Morrison (1994) found that employees often rated behav-

iors from common measures of citizenship as in-role rather

than extra-role behaviors and they were more likely to

engage in behaviors defined as in-role. Behaviors com-

prising personal industry may have been viewed as in-role

and less discretionary, especially given the participating

organization’s industry (production and distribution), and

thus may not have been viewed as appropriate behaviors

for reciprocating for enhanced treatment or well-being.

The present findings extend prior research in several

ways. First, it is important to note that PC fulfillment may

not prove explanatory in terms of how leaders influence all

types of citizenship behavior. Rather, PC fulfillment may

increase OCB to the extent that the extra-role behavior

benefits the leader or symbolic ‘‘organization,’’ rather than

coworkers. Second, the results support the social exchange

(Blau 1964) and norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960)

framework as the basis for the servant leadership–

employee outcomes linkage. Not only does PC fulfillment

enhance trust between the parties, but employees may view

the relationship as more long term in nature. Consistent

with this perspective, Joireman et al. (2006) found that the

likelihood of engaging in OCB was higher for those who

had adopted a long-term time horizon within their organi-

zation. Thus, PC fulfillment may increase employees’

desire to remain with their organizations and view of the

relationship as a long-term commitment.

In addition to investigating PC fulfillment as an

explanatory mechanism for the relation between servant

670 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

leader behavior and follower contributions, another

important theoretical contribution of our research was the

identification of key boundary conditions for when servant

leader behavior impacts PC fulfillment. Drawing from

substitutes-for-leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier 1978),

we proposed that the extent to which servant leadership

impacts PC fulfillment depends on followers’ extraversion,

proactive personality, and collectivism. In doing so, we

answered calls to examine subordinate characteristics other

than the ones initially identified by Kerr and Jermier as

leadership substitutes (Podsakoff et al. 1996). Extraversion

and collectivism were found to moderate the relationship in

the expected direction, as individuals low on these traits

tended to benefit more from servant leaders (in terms of PC

fulfillment) compared to highly extroverted and highly

collectivistic individuals. Based on substitutes for leader-

ship theory, it appears that extroverts may be able to net-

work and gain social capital that provides some of the

benefits of a servant leader (Bauer et al. 2006). On the other

hand, introverts may lack this skill and consequently

experience greater benefits from a servant leader. Simi-

larly, collectivistic individuals, who value cooperation,

harmony, and self-sacrifice in favor of in-group members,

may have developed strong ties with members of their

work groups who are able to provide some of the benefits

of a servant leader. By contrast, individualists, who value

autonomy, freedom, and competition (Triandis 1995), may

have put less effort into developing such ties. This study’s

results are consistent with findings in the social networks’

literature that show extroverts and collectivists to have

stronger, denser networks than introverts and individualists

(Kalish and Robins 2006). The nonsignificant effects for

proactive personality imply that followers, irrespective of

their propensity to act upon their environment, may benefit

from servant leadership. This could be due to the fact that

proactivity may, in some cases, involve the use of

aggressive tactics such as self-promotion and ingratiation

(Crant 2000), which may not be effective across all orga-

nizational settings in developing the relationships neces-

sary to obtain fulfillment of PC terms.

In addition to contributing to the servant leadership lit-

erature, our findings also shed light on the more general

question of when leadership is most influential in stimu-

lating positive evaluations of PC fulfillment. Dulac et al.

(2008) theorized and found evidence to suggest that lea-

der–follower relational processes impact evaluations of PC

fulfillment. Also, some scholars have argued that employ-

ees are likely to view their immediate supervisors as the

agents who are primarily responsible for fulfillment of the

PC (Shore and Tetrick 1994). However, there has been a

lack of research examining conditions under which lead-

ership behavior might be more or less important as an

antecedent of PC fulfillment perceptions. This study

contributes to theoretical development in this domain by

suggesting that for some types of employees (those high on

extraversion and collectivism) servant leadership behaviors

are less important determinants of PC fulfillment percep-

tions, which may be due to their ability to seek PC ful-

fillment from sources other than their leader. Broadly

speaking, we contribute to enhanced understanding of

when leadership matters most in terms of stimulating

positive employee outcomes, such as innovation and OCB

through engaging in behaviors that might by typically

associated with higher levels of PC fulfillment.

Strengths and Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of its

strengths and weaknesses. One strength of the study is that

it focuses on an emerging area of leadership research,

servant leadership. Not only is servant leadership distinct

from more established theories such as transformational

leadership (e.g., Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008; Schau-

broeck et al. 2011), it is compatible with contemporary

perspectives on organizations with its focus on multiple

stakeholders, including the community. An additional

strength of our investigation was the cross-lagged design in

which servant leadership and the employee characteristics

were measured 4 months prior to the PC fulfillment and

employee outcome variables. This design strength enabled

us to assuage concerns that the relation between servant

leadership and PC fulfillment is inflated due to same-source

common method variance, as these measures were both

completed by subordinates but at two different time peri-

ods. In terms of the PC fulfillment to outcome relation-

ships, PC fulfillment was based on subordinate reports, and

all outcomes were reported by supervisors, thus eliminating

the possibility of inflation of the relationships between PC

fulfillment and the outcomes due to same-source bias. A

final strength is that the study utilized a measure of servant

leadership that was developed through a rigorous scale

development and validation process (Liden et al. 2008).

These methodological strengths enable us to state with

greater confidence that servant leadership influences criti-

cal employee perceptions and behaviors and is deserving of

further attention by leadership scholars.

Despite the strengths of our study, there are a number of

limitations. First, the sample size was rather small, as only

101 supervisor–subordinate dyads were included in our

analyses. Indeed, all data were collected from a relatively

small organization in the production and distribution

industry, making it necessary for future research to attempt

replication in other industries and larger organizations.

Furthermore, we adapted and built upon an existing mea-

sure to capture PC fulfillment, which may constitute a

limitation as our measure had not previously been

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 671

123

validated. The high correlations among leadership vari-

ables represent another limitation. Nevertheless, the current

work takes a first step at comparing leadership styles in the

employment relationship, and results of this exploratory

study suggest servant leadership behaviors exert a unique

influence on subordinate outcomes. Also, although the

time-lagged design helped to enhance validity of the

results, the time separation was only 4 months. Another

limitation is that absolute inferences of causation cannot be

drawn due to the uncontrolled environment. In addition, the

current investigation focused on actual leader behaviors

that reflect a desire to prioritize service to others; future

research might directly examine followers’ perceptions of

their leaders’ motives. Servant leadership theory contends

that servant leader behavior is based on a motive to acquire

and exert power for maximizing stakeholders’ interests

rather than self-interests. The assumption is that followers

respond more positively to leaders who are engaging in

behaviors that benefit others. However, empirical research

has not fully investigated this aspect of the theory, or the

effects of multiple motives. Additional studies are needed

that examine followers’ perceptions of their leaders’

motives in order to provide more evidence of the impor-

tance of leaders prioritizing others’ interests.

Servant leadership theory proposes that a servant lea-

der—one who prioritizes service to others in the leadership

role—can motivate followers to engage in extra-role

behaviors in their work. The results of our study shed light

as to how and why this occurs; however, additional

research is needed to confirm this assertion. Specifically, a

longer-term longitudinal design than the one employed

here, which examines whether servant leaders are able to

change employee–organizational exchanges from eco-

nomic to social exchanges, would provide further evidence

of the beneficial impact of servant leaders on their

followers.

Practical Implications

Although tangible or financial rewards are often viewed as

critical to fulfillment of organizational promises, our results

suggest the importance of less-tangible resources, such as

leader behavior that reflects a prioritization of followers’

interests. Followers with servant leaders experienced

greater PC fulfillment compared to those who did not have

servant leaders. Organizations may be able to use servant

leadership as a conduit for fulfilling employees’ promises,

as servant leader behavior is an interpersonal, social

resource, often valued by employees. Because servant

leadership impacted three of the five follower behaviors

through PC fulfillment, the obvious implication is that

organizations should attempt to increase servant leadership

behavior. Yet, the steps for accomplishing this are

unknown as research has not extensively explored the

antecedents of servant leadership. The extent to which

servant leadership is driven by personality may indicate

whether selection based on personality traits versus train-

ing or both is the appropriate path for increasing servant

leadership in organizations.

A second important implication of our results is based

on our significant interactions between servant leadership

and extraversion and collectivism on PC fulfillment. Indi-

viduals low on extraversion or low on collectivism report

greater fulfillment of their PCs when their leaders engage

in servant leadership. Thus, leaders should be aware of the

power of servant leadership in fulfilling employee expec-

tations, especially for employees who are low on these

characteristics.

This suggests another question to be addressed by future

research: To what extent is servant leadership driven by

personality, situational factors, or both? Stewardship theory

(Davis et al. 1997) may be particularly beneficial in

developing the nomonological net of factors predictive of

servant leadership. Stewardship theory ‘‘defines situations

in which managers are not motivated by individual goals,

but rather are stewards whose motives are aligned with the

objectives of their principals.’’ (1997, p. 21). Given the

choice of maximizing self-serving goals or the goals of the

organization, the steward will choose behavior that benefits

the organization. The theory identifies psychological (e.g.,

motivation, identification, and power) and situational fac-

tors (e.g., management philosophy and cultural differences)

predictive of stewardship. Given the underlying focus on

serving others, stewardship theory shows promise in terms

of providing a strong theoretical foundation for identifying

predictors of servant leadership.

Conclusion

Our study underscores the importance of servant leader-

ship in the employment relationship. Specifically, servant

leadership impacts two forms of citizenship behavior,

and innovation through fulfillment of followers’ PCs,

even when controlling LMX and transformational lead-

ership. Extraversion and collectivism are boundary con-

ditions, such that individuals low in these characteristics

benefit to a greater extent from having a servant leader

compared to those high in extraversion and collectivism.

Our findings demonstrate that servant leadership is

deserving of continued attention by scholars particularly

interested in linking ethical leader behavior to followers’

attitudes and contributions in the employment

relationship.

672 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

References

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). Multifactor

leadership questionnaire technical report. Redwood City, CA:

Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the

components of transformational and transactional leadership

using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. L. (2009). Leadership:

Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review

of Psychology, 60, 421–449.

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and

construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Orga-

nization Management, 31, 300–326.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator

variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,

strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and

performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do

we know and where do we go next? International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 7, 18–40.

Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and

transformational leadership: An empirical examination of inno-

vative behaviors in leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 27, 477–499.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of

organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A

longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: LMX,

performance, and turnover during new executive development.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 298–310.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:

Wiley.

Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/

collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse

work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 233–257.

Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur:

Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Man-

agement Review, 16, 262–290.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 97, 117–134.

Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in

intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry:

A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer

adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190–210.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied

multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral

sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment

relationship through the lens of social exchange. In J. A.-M. Coyle-

Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The

employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual

perspectives (pp. 5–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of

Management, 26, 435–462.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a

stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management

Review, 22, 20–47.

Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure

of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation,

and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., &

Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new

millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspec-

tives. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36–62.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R.

(2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory: Leader-

ship effects and common-source bias. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87, 454–464.

Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Henderson, D. J., & Wayne, S. J.

(2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: The intercon-

nection of social exchange and psychological contract processes

in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51,

1079–1098.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further

explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups.

Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319–348.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as

antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior.

Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.

Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of

employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and

organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859–891.

Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-

analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 75, 329–345.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five

factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. L. (2000). Communication, procedural

justice, and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions

of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63–83.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary

statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct

redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Unpublished

manuscript, Loyola University of Chicago.

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspira-

tional and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105–119.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as a leader. Indianapolis, IN:

Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature

of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., &

Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader–member exchange, differentiation,

and psychological contract fulfillment: A multi-level examina-

tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208–1219.

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team

effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and

servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851–862.

Hunter, E. M., Mitchell, J., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A.,

Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire

servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and

the organization. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316–331.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member

exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.

Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good

citizens to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future

consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon

on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 1307–1320.

Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological predispositions and

network structure: The relationship between individual

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 673

123

predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social

Networks, 28, 56–84.

Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural,

collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations.

In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169–211). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their

meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 22, 375–403.

Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of

the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors:

An empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–102.

Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci

approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship

behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management,

33, 841–866.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative

behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance:

Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality

characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 86, 326–336.

Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C.

(2002). Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and

subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological

contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39–56.

Liden, R. C., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2004). The role of leader–

member exchange in the dynamic relationship between employer

and employee: Implications for employee socialization, leaders,

and organization. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, M. Shore, M.

S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship:

Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp.

226–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-

member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale

development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. J.

(2014a). Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and out-

comes. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership

and organizations (pp. 357–379). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014b). Servant

leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1434–1452.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant

leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and

multilevel assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.

Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985).

A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280–289.

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-

leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice

perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 17, 180–197.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. (1995). Individualism–collectivism as

an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship

behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizen-

ship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel

betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation

develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226–256.

Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., &

Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the

influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on

employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,

1220–1233.

O’Reilly, C. A, I. I. I., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D. F., & Chatman, J. A.

(2014). Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation. Leader-

ship Quarterly, 25, 218–231.

Okun, M. A., Pugliese, J., & Rook, K. S. (2007). Unpacking the

relation between extraversion and volunteering in later life: The

role of social capital. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,

1467–1477.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s

construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking

individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical

assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128,

3–72.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles

of job enrichment and other organizational interventions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review

of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal

of Business Ethics, 113, 377–393.

Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant

leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm perfor-

mance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565–596.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Kerr and Jermier’s

substitutes for leadership model: Background, empirical assess-

ment, and suggestions for future research. Leadership Quarterly,

8, 117–125.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996).

Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership

as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,

22, 259–298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on

followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general

multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation.

Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear

models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their

employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 289–400.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations:

Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, G. A. (2002). A review of servant leadership

attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 23, 145–157.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s

unipolar big-5 markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63,

506–516.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-

based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior

influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

96, 863–871.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative

behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the

workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.

674 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675

123

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital

theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44,

219–237.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as

an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C.

Cooper & D. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior

(Vol. 1, pp. 91–109). New York: Wiley.

Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren’t there two parties in an

employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of

organization–employee agreement on contract obligations and

violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 585–608.

Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee

proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of

emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 83, 275–300.

Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance:

A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,

1011–1017.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:

Westview.

Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985).

Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and dis-

criminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19,

395–415.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M.

(2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the

performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Management, 29, 187–206.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and

synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 1228–1261.

van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership

survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional

measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249–267.

van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N., &

Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential

mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational

leadership to follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 25,

544–562.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Grelle, D. (2009). Alternative model specifi-

cations in structural equation modeling: Facts, fictions, and truth.

In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and

methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine,

verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp.

167–193). New York: Routledge.

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant

leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee

attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level

investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529.

Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The

impact of psychological contract breach on work-related

outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647–680.

J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657–675 675

123

View publication statsView publication stats